re: 15 of the Top-100 just signed with 1 school.

quote:

---

This is an ignorant argument. NFL players are selected and don’t have much say in who they go to. Every kid in college can pick any school they want to. This is a Stupid tired argument that’s not even close to equal.

---

Lol, exactly. It’s why every NFL team has a Super Bowl ceiling and like 5% of CFB teams do. Look, I get it. Why would a Bama fan want it to change?

It’s causing decreased interest in the sport though.

quote:

---

You're free to make assumptions about certain meanings that weren't actually articulated, but don't expect everyone else to agree that those arguments were actually made when they weren't explicitly articulated.

---

You seem to be working in the most robotic of literal worlds here. Anyone with a basic knowledge or understanding of the subject could understand the difference between a coach that is fired for personal reasons before coaching a game and a coach fired for performance after 2-3 seasons, and why one is applicable to the discussion at hand and one is not.

quote:

---

So you don’t think coaching continuity is an issue around the country. That the programs with overwhelming success just happen to have long standing head coaches?

---

Correlation does not equal causation. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

I think having continuity is good, but I don't think continuity is good just for the sake of continuity. However, I do think you only get 1-2 quick changes (2-3 years of a coach) before your program start to suffer at a structural level.

Tennessee is a perfect example of that. Arkansas as well.

quote:

---

Correlation does not equal causation. Which came first, the chicken or the egg?

---

I feel history is on my side here. Up to the turn of the century there was a significantly higher number of programs competing for a national title. You also saw a lot of programs with head coaches is place for years.

Then the head coaching salaries sky rocketed after 2000. Programs like Oklahoma, Ohio State, and USC made hires that led to national success quickly. Everyone scrapped the 5+ year model for rebuilding as a rule of thumb and wanted success “now”. And here we are some 20 years later and there’s a revolving door everywhere.

And you’re right. Coaching continuity isn’t the only issue with where college football currently is. But it’s a pretty damn big issue, in my opinion.

quote:

---

Of course there's a difference. It's just not relevant to the argument that giving coaches more time is beneficial.

---

Like I said above, I do agree that continuity isn't the end all be all. And it also depends on where you are and what the tolerance/expectation is.

Mark Stoops deserved time at Kentucky. He was given it and he built a very specific type of program that has a very high floor (for Kentucky), but a relatively low ceiling. It took a while for him to create that culture, those recruiting pipelines, etc. But, that all relies on Kentucky fans being cool with going 7-6/8-5 most years with an occasional 9-10 win season.

I would probably think it was a bad idea to get rid of Mark Stoops because you wanted more at a place like Kentucky. I'd think that you are risking going back to the bottom when you have a very firm footing. HOWEVER, sometimes people want to take that risk. If you understand the risk, are willing to gamble with it in hopes of striking gold, go for it.

quote:

---

So will the next tier.

This is the problem. It’s not only that these schools are taking all the best players and playing them, they are also taking all the next best players and sitting them.

Obviously the top tier would still have an unfair advantage, but the gap wouldn’t be as wide and MAYBE a few of the next tier teams could overcome it from time to time.

The playoff has only made it worse. It’s been incredibly bad for CFB

---

I'll be honest - I'd be perfectly fine dropping the scholarship numbers from 85 to, say, 70 or 75. Replace that gap with preferred walk-ons, who would mostly be local/regional kids. From a strictly competitive nature, game on paper point of view, I'd have no issues with it.

But in the real world where scholarships are kids going to college, there is no chance in all of hell that the NCAA is going to cut 1,000 scholarships in Division 1A football. Even if there was a "trickle-down" effect argument. It would never, ever happen.

quote:

---

I'll be honest - I'd be perfectly fine dropping the scholarship numbers from 85 to, say, 70 or 75. Replace that gap with preferred walk-ons or something. From a strictly competitive nature, game on paper point of view, I'd have no issues with it.

But in the real world where scholarships are kids going to college, there is no chance in all of hell that the NCAA is going to cut 1,000 scholarships in Division 1A football.

---

It’s complicated for sure, but they placed a limit once and they could do it again. Move those extra scholarships to FCS or other sports.

The only other way is a draft. That can only happen when players start getting paid a salary and the guise of student athlete is dropped

You could also limit the number of 5* and 4* players a team could sign but that is way too arbitrary

quote:

---

It’s complicated for sure, but they placed a limit once and they could do it again. Move those extra scholarships to FCS or other sports.

---

Yea - I shouldn't say never, because things can change rapidly, but it would really take something big to do that. As you noted, allocation of those scholarships to other sports might be the only way they could do it.

quote:

---

The only other way is a draft. That can only happen when players start getting paid a salary and the guise of student athlete is dropped

---

Yea, I hate that idea. College football and recruiting are hand in hand. Getting rid of it isn't an option.